On 10/14/2013 10:46 AM, Richard Yao wrote: > My main concern is that some of the configure flags being proposed could > make packages that worked on Gentoo FreeBSD stop working there. I am not > making changes, but I think that there should be some benefit and that > care should be taken not to break things for everyone else. > > That being said, mgorny said that this adds support for mount > namespaces, but I have yet to hear an explanation of what that actually > means. What are the use cases? >
Someone brought to my attention that there was a slight error in the above message. I had meant to write "I am not against making changes..." rather than "I am not making changes...". In hindsight, the statement that "I am not making changes" was a more profound statement than the one that I meant to write because it can be interpreted in any of two ways: 1. It could be interpreted as meaning that I intend to oppose proposed changes when they have no benefit and I have the ability to oppose them. 2. It could be interpreted as meaning that I am not one of the people who make decisions for the packages involved. Consequently, my opinion here only matters to the extent that those who make decisions are willing to consider it. Both of which are correct. That being said, I am not against making changes, but given that this is on the list, I would like to someone to provide a technical justification. Some key questions that justification should answer are "what capability does this provide to sysytemd that cannot be obtained without this change? and "what does that do for users"? So far, the only thing that I have read is "systemd wants it", which answers neither question.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
